• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Voters: Behold your success

- Possibly and possibly not. It will depend on the details of your tax return. Someone demonstrated that in an earlier thread.
- If you decide to drop coverage because the penalty for having none, it gives you more freedom. If you're stupid, that can come back to bite.
- What you pay for yourself, you value more and work harder at. If you are really good, the university will often pay. If not, take out a loan. You stand to make much more money, if you don't study something that doesn't pay.

Nope. There are ways to criticise it, but those are not them.

Actually, most the experts agree that it will lower taxes innitially and then incrementally raised them starting in 2019 on gross incomes at around 60k.
It will hurt students, teachers, adoptive parents, chronically ill and people who suffer damages to their home from natural dissasters.
Furthermore it will give a tax break to those who stand to inherit over $10,000,000.00 since inheritance under that amount was never taxable anyway.
Trump will save billions over the next decade thanks to this. And the reason they passed this was to benefit the republicans Donor class. Not You.
 
Inflation-adjusted earnings growth. Please see the link in #132.

Went up like gangbusters during the housing bubble, I see.
S&P 500 Earnings - 90 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends

Not sure that means anything but exactly what it says. We have been trending upward since the last crash. I'm trying to be a little smarter this time, but I am taking advantage of the market "exuberance" as know-nothing Greenspan termed it. For now.
 
I'll actually probably end up paying about the same since I wont' be able to deduct my student loan interest anymore. Then I'll end up paying more in the end, THANKS TRUMP! conartist jackass

You don't know what the "end" is. How about some Democrats working with Republicans on a bipartisan basis and making the individual tax cuts permanent, keeping state and local tax deductions, and student loan interest? They won't do it because they don't want to tax the rich less, they want to tax the rich more. Screw the middle income class like yourself. There are enough moderate Republicans with Democrats that the far right could not stop them if Democrats joined in. Trouble is they are too much into being the resistance.
 
If you voted for Trump (or a Republican congressional member) and your household makes less than 70,000 dollars a year, I just want you to understand that you just voted to increase your taxes.

Or rather, in your name, your congress members just voted for it, and Trump will sign it. I just want you to understand that your president candidate lied to you when he told you cared about you, he lied to you when he said he understood your problems, and he lied to you when he told you he wasn't part of the establishment. It's not a secret on this forum that I don't like Democrats, but the Trump tax cuts will cut trillions from Medicare/Medicaid (something you paid into but will see much, much less of now), it will make it exponentially harder for your children to get a good education and now unless you are personally very wealthy, your children will never get access to higher education, especially in good industries right now like science and technology. And within a decade or sooner, it will increase your taxes, just so that rich people can have theirs lowered.

Trump isn't a part of the media establishment, but the Republican party bow down and kiss the feet of their rich lords. In Trump's case though, he just stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars, at your expense, personally, so he doesn't even need donors to influence his decisions. Trump is a rich lord who wants to see you hovel before him without dignity. Everything for him and his friends, and nothing for you. That's what Trump represents, that's what Trump cares about.

Wow, more leftwing propaganda distorting reality. First of all there is NO Tax bill, there are two of them that have to be reconciled. What is it about you people that have a problem with others keeping more of what they earn? Did you liberal schools teach you that it was the government's money and when you allow someone else to keep more of it that is an expense and has to be paid for? When are you leftists going to get a clue and actually look at results not speculation, record employment, hundreds of thousands of part time employees under Obama now with full time jobs, reduction in the discouraged workers, 3% GDP growth, reduction in the deficit over what Obama spent in 4 months. Why don't you leftists Admit exactly who you are and why you want to destroy the US economy?
 
That's exactly what the GOP was hoping you would say, because Republicans have contempt for the public’s intelligence. You will get a tax-cut in 2018, but those tax-cuts will go away by 2027 and your taxes will be higher. But don't worry, millionaires will keep their low taxes. So, just make sure you are a millionaire by then.

The hullabaloo is about Republicans, who only pretend to care about deficits, just enacted a huge tax cut for corporations and the wealthy that would add more than $1 trillion to the national debt. And it was also predictable that they would return to deficit posturing as soon as red ink they themselves produced as a reason to cut social spending on people just like you.

During the Senate debate over the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Senator Orrin Hatch was challenged over support for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers nine million U.S. children, but whose funding lapsed two months ago, and has not been renewed. Hatch declared his support for the program, but insisted that “the reason CHIP’s having trouble is because we don’t have money anymore” -- just before voting for a trillion-and-a-half-dollar tax cut that will deliver the bulk of its benefits to the richest few percent of the population.

He then went on to say, “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.”

Well, that was a rambling lot of propaganda.

The goal of the tax plan is draw companies to the US, expand the economy and add well paying jobs for the folks that used to comprise the Middle Class and have been forgotten and left behind of late.

Right now, based on the promise of the tax plan and the real effects of the regulation relaxation, the economy is revving up to a point not seen in years.

Regarding the tax cuts, they are happening and I'll end up with more take home.

This is not a hard story to tell. It shouldn't be too hard to understand.

You say that the tax cuts will "go away" and that my taxes will be higher. Will they be higher or just return to the current level?
 
Well, that was a rambling lot of propaganda.

The goal of the tax plan is draw companies to the US, expand the economy and add well paying jobs for the folks that used to comprise the Middle Class and have been forgotten and left behind of late.

Right now, based on the promise of the tax plan and the real effects of the regulation relaxation, the economy is revving up to a point not seen in years.

Regarding the tax cuts, they are happening and I'll end up with more take home.

This is not a hard story to tell. It shouldn't be too hard to understand.

You say that the tax cuts will "go away" and that my taxes will be higher. Will they be higher or just return to the current level?

The economy today is performing no better than it did under Obama. There is just more boasting.

Every non-partisan analysis of the tax plan reports that the economic gains from the plan are miniscule.

The bait of this plan is to have short-term tax reductions for the middle class. The switch is that those cuts turn into increases beyond what those taxpayers pay now. This is necessary according to the tax writers in order to keep the deficit below $1.5 trillion. Moreover, when those deficits materialize, these same people will use deficits as an excuse to slash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

As you said, this is not a hard story to tell.
 
You don't know what the "end" is. How about some Democrats working with Republicans on a bipartisan basis and making the individual tax cuts permanent, keeping state and local tax deductions, and student loan interest? They won't do it because they don't want to tax the rich less, they want to tax the rich more. Screw the middle income class like yourself. There are enough moderate Republicans with Democrats that the far right could not stop them if Democrats joined in. Trouble is they are too much into being the resistance.

well, when Bannon and extreme right wing zealots are primarring every "evil establishment" moderate Republican they can, and when the current administration is doing it's best to make Government even MORE inept and incompetent than ever before... yeah, I'm not holding my breath. It's all Fake new, Fake this and fake that, and you can't dare trust anything moderate or reasonable anymore, just the "pure" extremists on both sides. Also, there's a FAR right "republican" in the presidency now so he doesn't give a damn about moderate cooperation, just as long as he can give lip service to "keeping his campaign promises" to rile up his base so he feels good about himself for one more day.

I'm all for reasonable tax reform, reducing deductions and decreasing actual EFFECTIVE tax rates for corporations to at least make them nominally competitive, that's fine, but don't sell it to me like it's a tax cut for the middle class or poor, we just get screwed, that's how it's been for 40 years.
 
well, when Bannon and extreme right wing zealots are primarring every "evil establishment" moderate Republican they can, and when the current administration is doing it's best to make Government even MORE inept and incompetent than ever before... yeah, I'm not holding my breath. It's all Fake new, Fake this and fake that, and you can't dare trust anything moderate or reasonable anymore, just the "pure" extremists on both sides. Also, there's a FAR right "republican" in the presidency now so he doesn't give a damn about moderate cooperation, just as long as he can give lip service to "keeping his campaign promises" to rile up his base so he feels good about himself for one more day.

I'm all for reasonable tax reform, reducing deductions and decreasing actual EFFECTIVE tax rates for corporations to at least make them nominally competitive, that's fine, but don't sell it to me like it's a tax cut for the middle class or poor, we just get screwed, that's how it's been for 40 years.

The fact is, there are way more than enough Republicans with Democrats at their side that could vote for the very things I mentioned if the Democrats wanted to. The Bannonites don't have enough power to stop them. But, Democrats are the resistance and no matter how much good we could do, Democrats would refuse to vote for absolutely anything that helped the rich. As long as Mr. Smith got a bigger tax break than average Joe Smith, Democrats would not be on board, even if they have to screw average Joe Smith in the process.
 
The economy today is performing no better than it did under Obama. There is just more boasting.

Every non-partisan analysis of the tax plan reports that the economic gains from the plan are miniscule.

The bait of this plan is to have short-term tax reductions for the middle class. The switch is that those cuts turn into increases beyond what those taxpayers pay now. This is necessary according to the tax writers in order to keep the deficit below $1.5 trillion. Moreover, when those deficits materialize, these same people will use deficits as an excuse to slash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

As you said, this is not a hard story to tell.

There are more Americans working right now than at any time in the last 15 years.

The stock indexes, all of them, have posted more record closes since the election than in any 1 year period in 100 years.

The unemployment rate is at historic lows, the American public's wealth has increased by about $5 Trillion since the election, the Dow Jones Industrial Index is increasing at about ten times the rate of the previous decade. You can put the illusion of the Obama miracle to bed. It never happened.

Trump is not the Messiah. The major difference is just stopping the restraints that Obama applied.

The games being played with the sun setting rates is to get around the ridiculous demand that the economic growth be pegged at less than 2%.

Even before the tax rate cuts, we are well above that. With the tax cuts, we might be closer to 4% or 5% growth.

1% growth will more than deliver the tax revenue shortfall.

I personally think the major impacts will come from the reduced corporate rates and the return of the trillions from overseas.

The personal rate cuts are just a goody for me.

Our budgetary problems are the result rd spending going up, not revenues coming down. The debt has doubled every 8 years this century. As far as I know, Obama was not a big tax cutter, but the debt still went up.
 
There are more Americans working right now than at any time in the last 15 years.

The stock indexes, all of them, have posted more record closes since the election than in any 1 year period in 100 years.

The unemployment rate is at historic lows, the American public's wealth has increased by about $5 Trillion since the election, the Dow Jones Industrial Index is increasing at about ten times the rate of the previous decade. You can put the illusion of the Obama miracle to bed. It never happened.

Trump is not the Messiah. The major difference is just stopping the restraints that Obama applied.

The games being played with the sun setting rates is to get around the ridiculous demand that the economic growth be pegged at less than 2%.

Even before the tax rate cuts, we are well above that. With the tax cuts, we might be closer to 4% or 5% growth.

1% growth will more than deliver the tax revenue shortfall.

I personally think the major impacts will come from the reduced corporate rates and the return of the trillions from overseas.

The personal rate cuts are just a goody for me.

Our budgetary problems are the result rd spending going up, not revenues coming down. The debt has doubled every 8 years this century. As far as I know, Obama was not a big tax cutter, but the debt still went up.

The projection from the Joint Committee on Taxation says that economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade. That's essentially nothing. Meanwhile, it will add $1 trillion to the debt, over and above what is already projected. The JCT (and everyone else) conclude that the growth will not pay for the debt added.

The graphs below show clearly that Trump's economy is following the same trajectory as under Obama.

fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png
 
Actually, most the experts agree that it will lower taxes innitially and then incrementally raised them starting in 2019 on gross incomes at around 60k.
It will hurt students, teachers, adoptive parents, chronically ill and people who suffer damages to their home from natural dissasters.
Furthermore it will give a tax break to those who stand to inherit over $10,000,000.00 since inheritance under that amount was never taxable anyway.
Trump will save billions over the next decade thanks to this. And the reason they passed this was to benefit the republicans Donor class. Not You.

I quite realize that a five hundred page bill that is not even complete yet is hard to judge. But in general, the lower tax, to the extent it really is, on corporate income will certainly have an impact on investment. It is yet unknown, what that will be, but we may comfortably expect that to mean more efficient jobs and more of them.

As for any increase in personal taxes in 2019, you should be rejoicing. It is just the kind of sales pitch that the Democrats need.
 
The fact is, there are way more than enough Republicans with Democrats at their side that could vote for the very things I mentioned if the Democrats wanted to. The Bannonites don't have enough power to stop them. But, Democrats are the resistance and no matter how much good we could do, Democrats would refuse to vote for absolutely anything that helped the rich. As long as Mr. Smith got a bigger tax break than average Joe Smith, Democrats would not be on board, even if they have to screw average Joe Smith in the process.

Your "fact" is messed up. Bannon has thus far been successful in getting many far right republicans in office, including the PRESIDENT. The "Freedom Caucus" has a lot of power in the House of Representatives, it's not just Bannon, it's also the Tea Party, and in primaries, those trend towards more extreme politics, so they have more success there. It's not just the Democrats that are resisting, there's Rand Paul and his libertarian brand of Republicanism, there's the "Freedom Caucus" and there's the extreme right and there's the establishment, both republican and democratic that do their donors bidding. The moderates are truly outnumbered by all of those combined.

the reality is, if you're an average person, your voice doesn't matter, only if you're an extremist threat or a millianaire/billionaire donor, or a "job creator" do you even get a say in anything in our government. What's sad is that I'm glad for the extremists, because without them, we'd just be a normal oligarchy or feudal system, at least the extremists are citizens getting their voices heard.
 
I quite realize that a five hundred page bill that is not even complete yet is hard to judge. But in general, the lower tax, to the extent it really is, on corporate income will certainly have an impact on investment. It is yet unknown, what that will be, but we may comfortably expect that to mean more efficient jobs and more of them.

As for any increase in personal taxes in 2019, you should be rejoicing. It is just the kind of sales pitch that the Democrats need.

there is absolutely NO guarantee or much evidence to support that "the lower tax, to the extent it really is, on corporate income will certainly have an impact on investment." and even LESS of a guarantee that investment will create jobs, good paying or not. You may comfortably expect more efficient jobs and more of them, but you have no reason to be that delusional. Corporations only want to create more profit, more jobs means less profit, especially if they are good paying jobs. The wage gap between America and the rest of the world still exist, so giving corporations a tax break gives them more money to invest in overseas production and helps offset the cost of doing business overseas, where wages are still lower by far.
 
there is absolutely NO guarantee or much evidence to support that "the lower tax, to the extent it really is, on corporate income will certainly have an impact on investment." and even LESS of a guarantee that investment will create jobs, good paying or not. You may comfortably expect more efficient jobs and more of them, but you have no reason to be that delusional. Corporations only want to create more profit, more jobs means less profit, especially if they are good paying jobs. The wage gap between America and the rest of the world still exist, so giving corporations a tax break gives them more money to invest in overseas production and helps offset the cost of doing business overseas, where wages are still lower by far.

I am not interested in exceptions to the rule right now, so we can assume that profits are not consumed but will either be invested or distributed to equity holders. If they don't invest themselves, the cash will go to shareholders. Those will tend to be either companies or social groups wth a higher propensity to invest than average. So cp increasing the after tax profits will cause investment.

Nope. More jobs do not reduce less profits but more.

A wage gap alone is not enough to determine, where the investment will go. That depends on a whole mix of factors. But considering the quantity of cash held in deposits outside the US. My surmise is that as it was not invested so far, it will come home.
 
Last edited:
Your "fact" is messed up. Bannon has thus far been successful in getting many far right republicans in office, including the PRESIDENT. The "Freedom Caucus" has a lot of power in the House of Representatives, it's not just Bannon, it's also the Tea Party, and in primaries, those trend towards more extreme politics, so they have more success there. It's not just the Democrats that are resisting, there's Rand Paul and his libertarian brand of Republicanism, there's the "Freedom Caucus" and there's the extreme right and there's the establishment, both republican and democratic that do their donors bidding. The moderates are truly outnumbered by all of those combined.

the reality is, if you're an average person, your voice doesn't matter, only if you're an extremist threat or a millianaire/billionaire donor, or a "job creator" do you even get a say in anything in our government. What's sad is that I'm glad for the extremists, because without them, we'd just be a normal oligarchy or feudal system, at least the extremists are citizens getting their voices heard.

You're ignoring the Democrats. If the nonBannonite Republicans and Democrats worked together, the Bannonites would have zero power. Democrats refuse. They are the resistance.
 
Wow, more leftwing propaganda distorting reality. First of all there is NO Tax bill, there are two of them that have to be reconciled. What is it about you people that have a problem with others keeping more of what they earn? Did you liberal schools teach you that it was the government's money and when you allow someone else to keep more of it that is an expense and has to be paid for? When are you leftists going to get a clue and actually look at results not speculation, record employment, hundreds of thousands of part time employees under Obama now with full time jobs, reduction in the discouraged workers, 3% GDP growth, reduction in the deficit over what Obama spent in 4 months. Why don't you leftists Admit exactly who you are and why you want to destroy the US economy?

First, you're correct that there are two competing tax bills, and no one really knows what the outcome will be, if any.

Second, sure, letting people keep more of their hard earned money is a terrific idea. Let's do that, but...

When is the "left" or the "right" going to admit that cutting taxes also requires cutting back spending? When will a party emerge that actually wants to cut back the size and power of the federal government? Right now, it's cut taxes, but spend, spend, spend, and expect the magic fairies to balance it all out. Now, the Republicans are saying that the deficit doesn't matter, as interest rates are low. It sure mattered when the Democrats were in control, but no more.

There is no "conservative" party in Washington, just a big government party called Democrats and another called Republicans. Tweedledumocrats and Tweedledeeblicans is what they are.
 
The projection from the Joint Committee on Taxation says that economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade. That's essentially nothing. Meanwhile, it will add $1 trillion to the debt, over and above what is already projected. The JCT (and everyone else) conclude that the growth will not pay for the debt added.

The graphs below show clearly that Trump's economy is following the same trajectory as under Obama.

fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png

Everything is exactly as it was and yet everyone feels better about their future. It's a mystery.

Has the US economy EVER posted a 0.8% growth rate across any 10years since the end of the Depression? I mean EVER? C'mon, man!

Whatever the source of the data you've posted might be, they are obviously a hit job and nothing more.

Up until the election, the Obama era DOW posted 105 record closes in 8 years.

In the roughly 1 year since the election, the DOW has posted 82 record closes. That's more than 6 times the rate under the Big 0. Had another one this week- not so unusual- we're averaging about 1 every week.

The Dow has risen from about 18000 to about 24000 Since Trump won. That's about a 6000 point jump and still going.

Obama was elected when the DOW was at about 8600 and it dropped another 1000+ points or so and then started to claw back to the 18,000 level. This was at the low point and an aberration from normal. There was a previous drop off in the "Great Recession" from about 14,000.

Recovering to 14,000 should have been an automatic. Turned out, not so much...

Under Obama, the DOW advanced about 10,000 in 8 years. Under Trump, so far, it's advanced about 6,000 in one year. Still advancing...

THAT rate of advance is just under 5X comparing the "Trump Bump to the Obama Recovery.

The ONLY difference so far is that Trump has loosened some of the Strangling Regulations imposed by Obama. More to come.

When the new tax rates kick in, fasten your seat belts and make sure that your tray table and seat backs are in their fully upright and locked positions.
 
Everything is exactly as it was and yet everyone feels better about their future. It's a mystery.

Has the US economy EVER posted a 0.8% growth rate across any 10years since the end of the Depression? I mean EVER? C'mon, man!

Whatever the source of the data you've posted might be, they are obviously a hit job and nothing more.

Up until the election, the Obama era DOW posted 105 record closes in 8 years.

In the roughly 1 year since the election, the DOW has posted 82 record closes. That's more than 6 times the rate under the Big 0. Had another one this week- not so unusual- we're averaging about 1 every week.

The Dow has risen from about 18000 to about 24000 Since Trump won. That's about a 6000 point jump and still going.

Obama was elected when the DOW was at about 8600 and it dropped another 1000+ points or so and then started to claw back to the 18,000 level. This was at the low point and an aberration from normal. There was a previous drop off in the "Great Recession" from about 14,000.

Recovering to 14,000 should have been an automatic. Turned out, not so much...

Under Obama, the DOW advanced about 10,000 in 8 years. Under Trump, so far, it's advanced about 6,000 in one year. Still advancing...

THAT rate of advance is just under 5X comparing the "Trump Bump to the Obama Recovery.

The ONLY difference so far is that Trump has loosened some of the Strangling Regulations imposed by Obama. More to come.

When the new tax rates kick in, fasten your seat belts and make sure that your tray table and seat backs are in their fully upright and locked positions.
The source is The Federal Reserve's Economic Research database (FRED).

Under Obama, the economy hit or surpassed 3 percent growth during numerous quarters... I also do not know where you got your average 0.8% GDP growth over 10 years. Why 10 years and not Obama's 8 years? Ah, because that way you get to misleadingly include the huge drop from the Great Recession in those 10 years.

Comparing the stock market as a measure is equally misleading and it doesn't account for the differences. What are these differences? When Obama was elected, the economy was in free-fall. So, of course the stock market was going to continue to drop. It wasn't until Obama fiscal policies took hold that we had a roaring of the stock market. The DOW has gained 250% under Obama.

That's quite different from Trump, who was handed a growing mended economy. But I do understand Trump's mentality. Trump inherited great wealth from his father and thinks he's is a self-made man. Trump, a year in, still hasn't enacted any major policies. We are currently living under Obama's economy.

The ONLY difference so far is that Trump has loosened some of the Strangling Regulations imposed by Obama. More to come.
What are these "strangling regulations?" I had no idea that the Obama regulation that kept a pesticide that was known to harm children's brains out of the food supply and not allowing coal companies to dump harmful ash in streams, was such a drag on the economy. Or, that the Obama regulation that Trump undid that regulated silica in worker's air was job killing -- but it will kill workers.

The Human Cost Of Trump’s Rollback On Regulations
 

Attachments

  • fred-masthead-research-2x.jpg
    fred-masthead-research-2x.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 10
The source is The Federal Reserve's Economic Research database (FRED).

Under Obama, the economy hit or surpassed 3 percent growth during numerous quarters... I also do not know where you got your average 0.8% GDP growth over 10 years. Why 10 years and not Obama's 8 years? Ah, because that way you get to misleadingly include the huge drop from the Great Recession in those 10 years.

Comparing the stock market as a measure is equally misleading and it doesn't account for the differences. What are these differences? When Obama was elected, the economy was in free-fall. So, of course the stock market was going to continue to drop. It wasn't until Obama fiscal policies took hold that we had a roaring of the stock market. The DOW has gained 250% under Obama.

That's quite different from Trump, who was handed a growing mended economy. But I do understand Trump's mentality. Trump inherited great wealth from his father and thinks he's is a self-made man. Trump, a year in, still hasn't enacted any major policies. We are currently living under Obama's economy.


What are these "strangling regulations?" I had no idea that the Obama regulation that kept a pesticide that was known to harm children's brains out of the food supply and not allowing coal companies to dump harmful ash in streams, was such a drag on the economy. Or, that the Obama regulation that Trump undid that regulated silica in worker's air was job killing -- but it will kill workers.

The Human Cost Of Trump’s Rollback On Regulations

Regarding the 0.8% growth over a decade, I got it from YOUR post: "The projection from the Joint Committee on Taxation says that economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade."

Regulations are like anything else. In moderation they can be good. None is probably bad and too many are probably bad. Issuing 7 every day for 8 years is probably very bad. It's time for a break.

Obama DID produce an economy that hit a growth rate of 3% in a few quarters. HOWEVER, he is the first President elected since 1932 to have avoided even one year of 3% growth. That's not comparing him to the singular best that ever was. That's comparing him to every other President in the modern era. Even during the Great Depression, there was annual growth in excess of 3%.

You just have to be impressed by that record of economic incompetence. Especially considering that he started in a very deep hole. Just getting out of that hole would have produced that rate of increase.

That accomplishment, or lack of it, is astonishing.
 
If that is true, then the Repubs will be slaughtered in 2018. Be happy. Blame Democrats if you really believe your post. If anyone else except HC has been the nomineee, a Dem would have won hands down. The Dems NEVER should have run her. To choose a candidate based on political payback is a very stupid thing to do, especially if the name is Hillary Clinton. Had Bernie been treated fairly by the DNC, there’s a very good chance he would have beaten HC. I and many others would have been HAPPY to vote for him over Trump.

No they won't. Republicans thrive on lies, and their constituents will gobble them up. Democrats will get just enough political power to clean up this mess before **** really hits the fan, and then repeat.
 
Regarding the 0.8% growth over a decade, I got it from YOUR post: "The projection from the Joint Committee on Taxation says that economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade."

Regulations are like anything else. In moderation they can be good. None is probably bad and too many are probably bad. Issuing 7 every day for 8 years is probably very bad. It's time for a break.

Obama DID produce an economy that hit a growth rate of 3% in a few quarters. HOWEVER, he is the first President elected since 1932 to have avoided even one year of 3% growth. That's not comparing him to the singular best that ever was. That's comparing him to every other President in the modern era. Even during the Great Depression, there was annual growth in excess of 3%.

You just have to be impressed by that record of economic incompetence. Especially considering that he started in a very deep hole. Just getting out of that hole would have produced that rate of increase.

That accomplishment, or lack of it, is astonishing.
If you got that projection ("The projection from the Joint Committee on Taxation says that "economic growth will only be 0.8% over a decade.") from my post, then you completely misunderstand what either I or the JCT was stating. JCT was stating that the 'massive growth' promised by the proponents of Trump/GOP tax bill will only add 0.8% to GDP. In other words, there will not be any great, terrific, yuge, growth from this tax-plan.

You made it sound as if growth for the last ten years was 0.8%.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
If that is true, then the Repubs will be slaughtered in 2018. Be happy. Blame Democrats if you really believe your post. If anyone else except HC has been the nomineee, a Dem would have won hands down. The Dems NEVER should have run her. To choose a candidate based on political payback is a very stupid thing to do, especially if the name is Hillary Clinton. Had Bernie been treated fairly by the DNC, there’s a very good chance he would have beaten HC. I and many others would have been HAPPY to vote for him over Trump.
Republicans in power bank on their assumption that voters are stupid (they've been successful in the past with this operating plan) and will only see their taxes decrease in 2018 and not realize that it's temporary and their taxes after the 2018 election will be higher and they will face the double-whammy down the line of Medicare and Social Security cuts, the Ryan is now openly and boldly endorsing.
 
Republicans in power bank on their assumption that voters are stupid (they've been successful in the past with this operating plan) and will only see their taxes decrease in 2018 and not realize that it's temporary and their taxes after the 2018 election will be higher and they will face the double-whammy down the line of Medicare and Social Security cuts, the Ryan is now openly and boldly endorsing.

Nobody’s SS check is going to be cut. That’s the fearsome song Dems sing every time SS comes to the table. And it is NEVER going to happen. What probably has to happen is full retirement age will bump a year. Perhaps contributions will increase. And my favorite? That I’ve heard no one espouse? Taking into account ALL income when determining eligibility for SS benefits. Know how you can’t earn over $X without losing benefits? Well include dividends, interest and other investment income in that figure... not just the poor sap that has to get a part-time job at WalMart to make ends meet. THAT difference would be huge.

Social Security disability needs an overhaul and a bounty on fraud. So does Medicaid. Let the private sector find the fraudsters and pay them a percentage of amount saved to do so. Right now, Medicaid’s fraud dept is overworked and only finds the tip of the Titanic’s iceberg... like 900 dental procedures done by one dentist in a day.

As for Medicare? It needs an overhaul as well. Right now, it costs just over $100 a month for Part B. Part A is free. Part B should be priced progressively. A guy who’s getting an average Social Security check of around $1300 (I think it is) pay’s the same as the guy who structures all of his income in annuities and tax deferreds, has $5 million in the bank and earns $2700 (guess) a month SS. THAT guy should be paying $600 a month for his Part B and shouldn’t even be RECEIVING Social Security payments.

The system needs fixing. If Dems were smart, which they’re NOT, they’d be hammering for some of these changes themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom